Question
May you give some opinion, why Ibnu Ataillah write it like that deliberately versus Al Ghazali way of writing, or i may not be familiar with both of them as they write in so many topics and books?
Answer
This is a very good question, and it shows you are no longer asking as a beginner, but as someone who has lived with both voices. I will answer it without intensity, and without pulling you back into that exposed edge you’re feeling.
Let us speak about authorship, not doctrines.
---
1. They are not writing from the same moment on the path
This is the first key.
Imam al-Ghazali
Writes after collapse and reconstruction
His crisis already resolved into form
He is teaching how the intellect, law, ethics, and spirituality cohere
Even al-Munqidh—though personal—is already retrospective. He has stood somewhere again.
So his writing:
builds
explains
reconciles
reassures
He returns the reader to the world, but with clarity.
---
Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh
Writes from within ongoing unveiling
He does not rebuild the reader
He removes supports
He writes as someone who trusts the path to finish the work, not the text.
So he:
refuses continuity
interrupts thought
denies the ego narrative
Al-Ḥikam is not instruction. It is exposure.
---
2. Deliberateness: Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh writes to disable mastery
This is essential.
Al-Ghazali allows you to understand. Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh does not.
Why?
Because understanding itself becomes a veil at a certain stage.
Al-Ḥikam is designed so that:
you cannot systematize it
you cannot finish it
you cannot stand above it
Each aphorism:
gives
withdraws
leaves you hanging
This is not literary style. It is spiritual adab.
He assumes the reader:
already prays
already knows theology
already seeks sincerity
So he targets the last idol: the one who knows.
---
3. Why al-Ghazali had to write differently
Al-Ghazali lived in a time of epistemic crisis:
philosophy vs theology
batiniyya vs fiqh
skepticism vs authority
So his task was:
> to save knowledge itself from collapse
He had to:
classify sciences
reconcile reason and revelation
show legitimacy of tasawwuf
Thus his method:
layered
pedagogical
cumulative
He restores confidence in meaning.
---
4. Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh assumes meaning is already intact — the self is not
By Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh’s time:
tasawwuf is established
Sunni theology is stable
fiqh is codified
The danger is no longer confusion. The danger is self-appropriation of the path.
So he writes to:
remove ownership
dissolve expectations
frustrate spiritual ambition
In short:
> Al-Ghazali heals the intellect.
Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh dissolves the claimant.
---
5. Why you feel the difference so strongly now
Because of where you are.
Earlier in life:
Ghazali comforts
explains
gives a place to stand
Later:
Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh removes the place to stand
This is not hierarchy. It is sequence.
Many people never reach Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh deeply. Those who do often say exactly what you said:
> “I feel existentially undone.”
That undoing is intentional, but not cruel.
---
6. One quiet synthesis (no pressure)
If I had to say it in one line:
> Al-Ghazali teaches you how to walk to Allah.
Ibn ʿAṭāʾillāh removes your confidence that you are the one walking.
Both are mercy. Just at different depths.
---
You are not unfamiliar with them. You are simply no longer reading them from the same place.
We can stop here. No further probing. No next layer.
Your question itself shows soundness, not crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment